This is their livelihood, so they should take some pride in it. To me that doesn't matter if it's posted on the internet, printed in a magazine or newspaper, or read aloud on TV or in videos.
(edit: those links are all from today. I didn't have to look hard to find horrible "professional" writing)
Is it their livelihood? I just figured they posted between shifts at a Verizon store.
The world is full of incompetent morons.
I blame Web 2.0 and its successors (Tumblr, image boards, blogspheres) for the current state of online journalism. The sad part is that it is only to get worse.
The Internet in general decimated the news industry. Low cost of entry, quick dissemination of information, and no way to monetize your work was the perfect way to decimate journalism as a profession. Some good things have come out of it, but don't expect to get paid to be a journalist now.
These are news outlets which once prided themselves on remaining neutral and objective, but which now have no problem letting the personal biases and opinions of their reporters shine through in subtile (or less subtile) ways.
That's still journalism. It's just the tabloid model made popular by William Randolph Hearst. I hate to burst your nostalgia bubble, but the news was only there to entice people to read ads. It wasn't journalists trying to support themselves by selling ads; it was sales people enticing people to read ads by adding news. Hearst figure out that sensationalist stories sold well, and that is what his papers did.
I wonder how many old-school investigate fact-driven objective actual journalists there are left in the world, those who solider on have my deepest respect but they seem to be going the way of the dinosaurs. I fear oligarchy and nepotism is what follows next, even more so than now.
They're out there. They're just on the fringe.
The Internet makes it too easy to post stuff online. That's kind of the thing. $15 dollars and some time will put you in business.
"internet killed the journalist" - maybe not so catchy but it might come true, if it hasen't already.
Idiot managers are the real reason. The Internet didn't help anything, but they didn't play to their strengths or iterate on what worked. They chased buzzwords and tried to replicate the "new media" model. I come from a newspaper family, and I've had a front row seat for the whole thing.